- Joined
- Feb 20, 2012
- Messages
- 104,071
- Reaction score
- 84,041
- Location
- Biden's 'Murica
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Moderate
that's not a valid rationale for the federal government requiring companies pay for months of work that is not done.
why hire a woman if you know you'll have to shell out months and months of pay for .. nothing?
hire a man instead... no need to take a loss, no need to replace that worker when she's with child... and the man will probably be denied those benefits anyways ( while we pretend to be against discrimination.)
The unfortunate reality is, this is exactly what will happen if the US companies are forced to pay for a very long materity leave. Today most big employers already do it. Most pay for 6 weeks (8 if you have a c-section) already, and you can legally take as much as 6 months unpaid leave and still keep your job. Most "career" women already work for these employers so the people who think that women have to give up their "careers" to have a baby are mistaken, unless you consider waitressing or something similar a career.
A knee jerk reaction will be exactly what you suggested which is people will attempt to hire men, consciously or subconsciously.